FCC Won't Punish Stephen Colbert For Controversial Trump Insult (slashdot.org)

Earlier this month, the FCC said it would look into complaints made against The Late Show host Stephen Colbert over a homophobic joke he made about President Donald Trump. Well, it turns out the FCC is not going to levy a fine against the comedian for using the word "cock" on late-night network television, reports The Verge. From the report: "Consistent with standard operating procedure, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau has reviewed the complaints and the material that was the subject of these complaints," reads the FCC's statement, according to Variety. "The Bureau has concluded that there was nothing actionable under the FCC's rules." Helping Colbert's case was the fact that the broadcast, time delayed for incidents like these, bleeped out the questionable word and also blurred the host's mouth as he was saying it. The FCC has broad authority to regulate what can and cannot be broadcast based on legal precedent regarding obscenity laws. Yet looser rules apply during the hours of 10PM and 6AM ET, when Colbert's show airs. So it would appear that the ample self-censorship on behalf of CBS saved the program from a guilty verdict in this case.

Comments

If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock holster

[Anonymous Coward]

Then it isn't America.

Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[iMadeGhostzilla]

He didn't harm anyone, it wasn't hate speech, he just made a crude unfunny joke. If people think that's fine, it's fine. If they think he's an idiot, they should ask their network to fire him. If they think he's a hypocrite (as I do) they don't need to watch him. Save legal enforcement for serious things.

Re: Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not hate speech because it's not targeting Trump for what he is, but what he does. It has nothing to do with his political leaning.

Also, fuck any conservative that thinks they, of all people, get to decide what is and is not homophobic. They lost that footing when they launched a multi-decade anti-queer campaign across the globe.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[Narcocide]

So, the issue I see here is we've grievously mislabeled the political parties. The "conservatives," as they call themselves, are in fact authoritarians. The entire Republican party has actually now become the party of extreme authoritarianism. There's nothing even remotely conservative about their key views anymore. The label "conservative" they wield like torches and pitchforks is nothing but a weak but surprisingly effective disguise that they only really care to use to fool themselves. And make no mistake; Nothing offends them more than disrespecting what they perceive as their righteous authority. Once you realize that, the apparent madness of the situation evaporates and the big picture becomes completely clear.

Re:Shouldn't be punishable anyway

[swillden]

he just made a crude unfunny joke

Actually, it wasn't intended to be that much of a joke. A little, sure, but the only source of humor was the shock value.

His real point, and his reason for using such a surprisingly crude phrase, was a very serious one. He was making the point that in America one can say the nastiest things possible about the most powerful government officials without fear of consequences. His rant was about free speech, about how crucial it is and about how Trump has absolutely no respect for it... but in spite of Trump's lack of respect for the principle, the principle holds, and Trump's power can do nothing about it.

When you understand the whole context, this FCC ruling is an important victory for all Americans, even those who found it offensive. Which, to be honest, included me, though I understood the point and appreciated the value of the point and the fact that the very offensiveness of the comment was what made the point forceful.

Re:US censorship?

[desdinova 216]

there is an extremely vocal minority of "christian" fundamentalists who tend to file complaints over anything remotely sexual. There was also a possibility of Trump, being as thin skinned as someone who claims that any negative news stories are "fake news" would use the FCC to silence a critic.

Not homophobic

[Anonymous Coward]

I was once in a conversation with a friend's partner. I used the term "my wife" when speaking to her about .... my wife. This woman replied that she thought it was gross of me to refer to the woman in my life using the term "My" which implied that she was a possession, not a human being. I had to make the point that, while yes, I'm sure some people use that term for that purpose, I didn't and I didn't like that she jumped to that conclusion with me. The phrase "my wife" refers to my relationship to her, just like "my uncle" or "my brother" does not refer to ownership. In that conversation, was I being sexist because I was using words that could be construed as sexist if you tried really hard?

Homophobic refers to the attitude in which the comment was made, not the way it was received by you. Could someone uttering those words be trying to make disparaging remarks about the President by suggesting he was homosexual? Sure. But a person uttering those words could instead and equally likely be making a point about the subservient position the person doing the pleasing is in relative to the person getting serviced, without any consideration toward the genders involved.

Knowing the history of Colbert's advocacy, I am as certain as anyone can be that he was making the comment with the latter intent. He could just as easily have made the comment about Theresa May if she were as deeply in Putin's pocket as Trump and it would have the same meaning. His point is about Putin having his way with Trump, not about a male having his way with another male.

Re:Not homophobic

[Pfhorrest]

like how all the tiny hands jokes aren't parvamanuphobic or actually suggesting that there's anything unusual about Trump's hands even, it's just a know sore spot with him, a hangup about being thought to have small hands, which makes it a good insult against him whether or not he really does and whether or not there'd be anything the matter if he did.

Re:Fucked

[Imrik]

I would disagree about it being homophobic. It was certainly a joke involving homosexuality, and obviously it was intended to be offensive, but those don't make it homophobic.

Re:Fucked

[DogDude]

But we all know that's now how these labels are used. They're weaponized. Had a conservative figurehead said a similar thing about a liberal figurehead, or an actual homosexual, that word would be bandied about like stink at Coachella.

You're arguing with a scenario that you created in your own mind.

Re:If you can't call a cunt like Trump a cock hols

[AthanasiusKircher]

Well, whatever the limits are/were, as TFS says: "bleeped out the questionable word and also blurred the host's mouth as he was saying it.

So, we can argue about what should or shouldn't be acceptable on "public broadcast TV," but since CBS didn't even BROADCAST the supposedly offensive word... I'm not sure why this was ever a thing in the first place.

Re:Fucked

[ceoyoyo]

The phrase "cock holster" itself very strongly denotes a dominant-submissive relationship, whether it refers to two men or a man and a woman, a mouth, a vagina, a whole person, whatever.

Colbert wasn't in any way calling Trump a bad person for being homosexual. He was calling Trump a bad person for being Russia's cock holster.